American History in American Thought: Christopher Columbus to Henry Adams by Bert James Loewenberg (review)

REVIEWS 463 his essay onthemor•[1 economy ofthe working classes oftheeighteenth century, explaincommitment and actionby reference to pastand presentratherthan future. But Plummerisstillan optimistwho believes that O'Brien'sview of the goodsociety ismaterially,if not morally,within our reachat the moment.Perhapsit isproperandjustthat thisviewshouldnot vanishfrom historywithout a hardstruggle. University o[Cali[ornia, Berkeley UNITED STATES AmericanHistory in American Thought: ChristopherColumbusto Henry Adams. •.RT JAM•.S •.O•.W•.N•.RO. NewYork,SimonandSchuster, x97•.Pp.73I. $I4.95. This massive compendium is the firstof four announced volumesdevotedto HistoricalWriting in AmericanCulture,and records the careers, ideas,and writingsof diarists, memorialist.s, chroniclers, and interpreters from the Norsemento the firstAmericangeneration of 'scientific' historians, includingHenry AdamsandFrederickJackson Turner. It isnoteasy toreviewanefforttoachieve theimmortality of comprehensiveness ; onemaybeginby notingthat the bookdisplays boththe virtuesand the vices ofitsdrivefortotalinclusion. It willprovide inquirers at anylevelofknowledgewith an adequateoutlineof the sprawlingsubject,and with much new information, some ofwhichwill haveserendipitous value.The skeptical account of pietyand learningat Harvardby a Dutchvisitorin x68o(p. I•) and the significance of BenjaminSilliman'sAmericanJournalo[ Scienceand Arts (p. 240) are two examples of the rangeof usefuldata assembled within the volume. However, the passionto include everythingalso resultsin confusionand fatigue;to present copious, admiringdetailof eachunit in what istreatedasa largeecological community doesnot necessarily lead to comprehension of the whole,andLoewenberg's explicitorganizing principle,that 'scholarship, likethe history thatcombines to createit, isan organicpart of culture,'(p. I I ) is far toovagueandgeneralto beof muchhelp.An effortto analyzeand interpretis certainly made,butthegeneralideaprovides little morethana leakytheoretical umbrellaover a dreary dead-marchof dog-earednotecards. An umbrella-style generalization can be worsethan none,sinceit may give a spurious sense of organization to a merecollection of materials.. Within the chapters devotedto individualauthors,'schools,' or departments, thereisa greatmass of information,butmuchof it seems random,and excessive space isdevotedto what mustbe calledappreciation rather than explicationor analysis closely defined;that is, we often learn Loewenberg's feelingsabout a historianmore clearlythan what the historiansaid. At moments,this style 464 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW degenerates into a Tom Lehrer parody,aswhen the antitheses achievetotal emancipation andwehearthat The Education ofHenryAdams'isimaginative andscientific, serious andironical,certainand tentative,mystical and realistic, erroneous andtrue.'The student seeking an adequate brieftreatmentof Adams' Historymustlook to J.C. Levenson's chapterin Cunliffe and Winks'sPastmasters , andfor longer,moreinclusive accounts to thebooks byLevenson and W.H. Jordy.Thisjudgment, unfortunately, mustapplytomuchofLoewenberg's discussion of major figures:his accounts are detailedbut alsotoo often otiose andopaque. A contributory cause maybe the failureto bringthe bookup to date.The research wasindeedmassive, butseems tohaveendedabout•958except for afew rifles added tothebibliography. Theresult isthatexcellent, incisive analyses published in the lastfifteenyearsarenot usedor cited- David Levin'sHistoryas RomanticArt: Bancroft,Prescott, Motley and Parkman,GeorgeH. Callcott's Historyin the U.S., •8oo-•86o,LeeBenson's TurnerandBeard,RichardHofstadter 's The Progressive Historians, PeterGay'sA Lossof Mastery:Puritan Historians in Colonial America. While muchof theblamefor the book's frequentwoolliness and superfluity mustliewiththeauthor(andwiththepublishers whoprintedwithoutrequiring revision andupdating, anindication thattheAmerican history marketmayhave become self-maintaining from automaticdemand,exemptfrom the selective process of scholarly criticism),it alsoresults from the lackof conceptual clarity andconsistency withinthefieldof intellectual history, andfromthe profession's rushto borrowbroadmetaphors fromthesocial sciences withoutan equivalent eagerness to adopttheirmethods of self-correction. What is'culture'?Is it more thananenvironmentalist equivalent oftheconcept 'race'whichwasused fortotal explanations seventy-five years ago? Asused here,'culture'issobroadandporous astoseem useless in theefforttoexplainwhyscholars chose certainthemes and materialsand neglected others.David Levin'sbook,on the other hand, shows howromantic literaryconventions moldedcharacterization andstyleofpresentationamonga generation of historians. Loewenberg's metaphorof explanation raises a largerissue. While 'culture'is anineffective means ofexplaining specifics, itsuse in thiscontext furthers a broad attitudetowardthe subject, whichis,I think,harmful.It reinforces the current tendency to seethe scholar notasivrimemoverbut aspatient,or victim,asthe excrescence ofhis'culture'or otherenvironmental forces. The resultisa neglect of theinfluences notsoeasilyclassified, includingsheerenergyandenthusiasm, andalso(despite Loewenberg's stated awareness of them) of thecompulsions set bytechnique, discipline, materials - theprofessional imperatives - in favourofan excessive emphasis on general'attitudes'or culturalpre-judgments, and in the longruna reinforcement ofthefeeling thattostrive forempathy andobjectivity isfutilebecause eventhescholar canneverhopeto transcend hisowncontext. Thefruitfulhistory ofhistory stilltobewrittenwillbetheaccount ofdocumentation ,materials, methods, inference - an unglamourous subject, but onewhich mightrevivethe sense that historyis a discipline progressing towardgreater knowledge andunderstanding. REVIEWS 465 It wouldbetooharshtodismiss a bookof thismagnitude ona whollynegative note.Loewenberg's massive accumulation ofdetailandjudgment produces many passing dividends, aswhenwe are givenevidence from hisHarvard students (several of whombecame majorhistorians) to refuteHenryAdams...